Implementation of Using Gadget During Class Hours free essay sample

Technology helps people live better and easier, before people used letter for their communication but because of the modern technology nowadays people use cell phone, tablets, computers and other gadget in terms of communication and other purposes. It is no surprise then that the use of technology occurs in the classroom. In the present generation, students are obsessed in using gadget. They usually want to buy a new release gadget to satisfy their wants, as a result of this students involve gadget in their everyday life including their studies. Students use more time using gadget than studying their lesson that affects their academic performance. The implementation of using gadget during class hour will not be approved because it will affect the student’s academic performance, socialization and society negatively.Some believe that the use of gadget in the classroom plays integral role of the student’s success in the future, but I believe that using gadget during class hour is distracting students from their potential of learning. We will write a custom essay sample on Implementation of Using Gadget During Class Hours or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page These devices are being used in hopes of enhancing students’ overall educational performance; students are using devices for activities such as answering questions, examining visualizations, note taking, researching, and communicating (e.g., email) (â€Å"Integrating Tech in High School,† 2012). Although the intended purposes of these devices are to improve educational experiences for the student, there have also been negative consequences from the introduction of modern technology in the classroom (Junco, 2012). Students who are using gadget during class hour cant focused on the lesson that the teacher discusses.Alarmingly, research shows that even students in proximity to other students using this technology are more likely to perform poorer in the classroom, even when they were not personally using technology (Sana, Weston, Cepeda, 2013).In general, using gadget during class hour can distract the students in their discussion that affect the academic performance of students, they are likely to perform, collaborate, and participate in class. Using gadget should not be approved so that students can focused on the discussion, perform/ participate, collaborate in the class and get a high grades.

Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)

Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) Can the government require people to get a special license in order to spread their religious message or promote their religious beliefs in residential neighborhoods? That used to be common, but it was challenged by Jehovahs Witnesses who argued that the government didnt have the authority to impose such restrictions on people. Fast Facts: Cantwell v. Connecticut Case Argued: March 29, 1940Decision Issued: May 20, 1940Petitioner: Newton D. Cantwell, Jesse L. Cantwell, and Russell D. Cantwell, Jehovahs Witnesses proselytizing in a predominantly Catholic neighborhood in Connecticut, who were arrested and convicted under a Connecticut statute banning the unlicensed soliciting of funds for religious or charitable purposesRespondent: The state of ConnecticutKey Question: Did the Cantwells’ convictions violate the First Amendment?  Majority Decision: Justices Hughes, McReynolds, Stone, Roberts, Black, Reed, Frankfurter, Douglas, MurphyDissenting: NoneRuling: The Supreme Court ruled that statute requiring a license to solicit for religious purposes constituted a prior restraint upon speech violating the First Amendments guarantee of free speech as well as the First and 14th Amendments guarantee of the right to the free exercise of religion. Background Information Newton Cantwell and his two sons traveled to New Haven, Connecticut, in order to promote their message as Jehovahs Witnesses. In New Haven, a statute required that anyone wishing to solicit funds or distribute materials had to apply for a license - if the official in charge found that they were a bona fide charity or religious, then a license would be granted. Otherwise, a license was denied. The Cantwells did not apply for a license because, in their opinion, the government was in no position to certify Witnesses as a religion - such a decision was simply outside the governments secular authority. As a result they were were convicted under a statute which forbade the unlicensed soliciting of funds for religious or charitable purposes, and also under a general charge of breach of the peace because they had been going door-to-door with books and pamphlets in a predominantly Roman Catholic area, playing a record entitled Enemies which attacked Catholicism. Cantwell alleged that the statute they had been convicted under infringed upon their right to free speech and challenged it in the courts. Court Decision With Justice Roberts writing the majority opinion, the Supreme Court found that statutes requiring a license to solicit for religious purposes constituted a prior restraint upon speech and gave the government too much power in determining which groups were permitted to solicit. The officer who issued licenses for solicitation was authorized to inquire whether the applicant did have a religious cause and to decline a license if in his view the cause was not religious, which gave government officials too much authority over religious questions. Such a censorship of religion as the means of determining its right to survive is a denial of liberty protected by the First Amendment and included in the liberty which is within the protection of the Fourteenth. Even if an error by the secretary can be corrected by the courts, the process still serves as an unconstitutional prior restraint: To condition the solicitation of aid for the perpetuation of religious views or systems upon a license, the grant of which rests in the exercise of a determination by state authority as to what is a religious cause, is to lay a forbidden burden upon the exercise of liberty protected by the Constitution. The breach of the peace accusation arose because the three accosted two Catholics in a strongly Catholic neighborhood and played them a phonograph record which, in their opinion, insulted the Christian religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular. The Court voided this conviction under the clear-and-present danger test, ruling that the interest sought to be upheld by the State did not justify the suppression of religious views that simply annoyed others. Cantwell and his sons may have been spreading a message that was unwelcome and disturbing, but they did not physically attack anyone. According to the Court, the Cantwells simply did not pose a threat to public order merely by spreading their message: In the realm of religious faith, and in that of political belief, sharp differences arise. In both fields the tenets of one man may seem the rankest error to his neighbor. To persuade others to his own point of view, the pleader, as we know, at times, resorts to exaggeration, to vilification of men who have been, or are, prominent in church or state, and even to false statement. But the people of this nation have ordained in the light of history, that, in spite of the probabilities of excesses and abuses, these liberties are in the long view, essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct on the part of the citizens of a democracy. Significance This judgment prohibited governments from creating special requirements for people spreading religious ideas and sharing a message in an unfriendly environment because such speech acts do not automatically represent a threat to public order. This decision was also notable because it was the first time that the Court had incorporated the Free Exercise Clause into the Fourteenth Amendment - and after this case, it always has.